I think any historical policy issue should be studied and debated because that process is important to the formulation of policy in the future. Those who consider the invasion a mistake because certain types of WMD were not found at the time, are not understanding the broader security consequences of leaving Saddam in power. Just as whether the US should begin to withdraw should not be based alone on recent casualty levels, nor should the cost of the war to this point be the lone determining factor in the wars necessity. Multiple other factors in both cases have to be considered.

It is not relevant to the current election. Start a historical thread if you like. AS I read the title of the thread it is about the ELECTION. In my mind that means the debate over should we or shouldn't we is not pertinent. It is WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD.

Ken Pollack has TRASHED this administrations handling of the war. He supported the removal of Saddam, but he most definitiely is NOT a supporter of the manner in which this administration LIED about Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invastion, the pinning of the world trade center bombing on Saddam, and the selective use of sentences from intelligence reports out of context of whole reports to make the run up to war. The debate that you want to have, is not pertinent to the election and moving forward.

The United States remained in Korea, Japan, and Germany out of necessity. US troops should remain in Iraq as long as it is necessary for US security needs there which include the development and rebuilding of the Iraqi State. Once they reach a sustainable level of development and security, both internal and external security, it will not be necessary to have US troops in the country.

So you disagree with Charles Krauthamer?

By the way you could say something along the lines of "it's not as simple as agree or disagree". . .and I'd accept that. But I'm looking for you to take an actual position on what he said rather than this admittedly masterfully evasive answer. I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .

It is not relevant to the current election. Start a historical thread if you like. AS I read the title of the thread it is about the ELECTION. In my mind that means the debate over should we or shouldn't we is not pertinent. It is WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD.

Ken Pollack has TRASHED this administrations handling of the war. He supported the removal of Saddam, but he most definitiely is NOT a supporter of the manner in which this administration LIED about Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invastion, the pinning of the world trade center bombing on Saddam, and the selective use of sentences from intelligence reports out of context of whole reports to make the run up to war. The debate that you want to have, is not pertinent to the election and moving forward.

You can't make the claim that the candidates positions on various issues over the past 8 years is not relevant to an election debate, although I agree discussing the way forward is the more important of the two.

The Bush administration did not lie about Al Quada and certainly did not say that Saddam was responsible for knocking down the World Trade Center. Every administration thats ever occupied the White House could be accused at one time or another of "selective use of sentences" from intelligence reports. While Ken Pollack has criticized the administrations handling of the war, he agrees with the administration on the much larger and strategic issue of removing Saddam from power.

The Bush administration did not lie about Al Quada and certainly did not say that Saddam was responsible for knocking down the World Trade Center. Every administration thats ever occupied the White House could be accused at one time or another of "selective use of sentences" from intelligence reports. While Ken Pollack has criticized the administrations handling of the war, he agrees with the administration on the much larger and strategic issue of removing Saddam from power.

Paul Wolfowitcz did not order members of the governement to investigate again if Saddam had links to the 1993 Trade Center Bombing? Check your facts. Wolfowitz and friends wanted anything they could muster to make their case including CHERRY PICKING sentences out of context from intel. There is a difference between selective use of intelligence reports and taking sentences that support your cause out of context from reports that did not support your cause. It leads to intel agents, who have worked their asses off quitting the agency they worked for, because their words are being twisted, taken out of context, and used to support things they did not intend their reports to support.

Pollack from his book supporting the removal of Saddam from Iraq on has consistently pointed out that the strategies this administration has used until recently, have been flawed and caused failures that were not necessary.

You have thrown Pollack around this forum since 2002. And guess what, I read Pollack faithfully, and you and your posts are the FURTHEST thing from Pollack.

I forgot.....you are always right. I will wait to dialogue with someone who cares to dialogue.

Sting, seriously, how many of your posts in this thread have had anything to do with the campaign?

If the moderator does not think that the discusion of US national security interest in the Persian Gulf to include the policies both candidates supported over the past 8 years in relation to the Persian Gulf is not relevant to "ALL discussion of candidates Iraqi policies", I'm sure they will step in and mention that.

Paul Wolfowitcz did not order members of the governement to investigate again if Saddam had links to the 1993 Trade Center Bombing? Check your facts. Wolfowitz and friends wanted anything they could muster to make their case including CHERRY PICKING sentences out of context from intel. There is a difference between selective use of intelligence reports and taking sentences that support your cause out of context from reports that did not support your cause. It leads to intel agents, who have worked their asses off quitting the agency they worked for, because their words are being twisted, taken out of context, and used to support things they did not intend their reports to support.

Sorry, but investigating something is not lying. I would hope that the intelligence community would be investigating such things among many others. Its funny, but Cherry Picking is precisely what critics of the administration have been doing the past 8 years.

Quote:

You have thrown Pollack around this forum since 2002. And guess what, I read Pollack faithfully, and you and your posts are the FURTHEST thing from Pollack.

This from someone who's concerned about the thread getting off topic. Ok, I have never claimed that I agree with Pollack on everything he has stated, but I do agree with him on what is the largest strategic issue here which is the decision to remove Saddam from power, which you do not. I've used Pollack's name in reference to the things we both agree on, the removal of Saddam from power and not leaving Iraq pre-maturely.

By the way you could say something along the lines of "it's not as simple as agree or disagree". . .and I'd accept that. But I'm looking for you to take an actual position on what he said rather than this admittedly masterfully evasive answer. I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .

Sorry, it is hard to stay on topic when you keep misleading people in this forum. You claiming Pollack as being with you is like the administration claiming the CIA intel supported the invasion.Tell you what, you play nice, and I will stay on topic.

Sorry, it is hard to stay on topic when you keep misleading people in this forum. You claiming Pollack as being with you is like the administration claiming the CIA intel supported the invasion.Tell you what, you play nice, and I will stay on topic.

The public was already in support of removing Saddam with military force prior to 9/11 according to a gallup poll released earlier in the year, and the allegations that the administrations "cherry picked" evidence made the public support the war is just false. Opinion polls on the topic of whether to invade and remove Saddam in September of 2002, are roughly the same as polls done in January 2003.

Unfortunately, your the only one misleading people if you think that my position on the removal of Saddam from power and the need to stay and rebuild Iraq afterwards is significantly different from Pollack's position on those issues. On the biggest issues in regards to US policy in Iraq, your the one thats in disagreement with Pollack.

Please, post evidence that the US public supported going to war and explain why, if such support was there, the United States Congress did not have a vote for a formal declaration of war if the public was so very much in favor of using our troops for such action.

Anyone who looks up Pollack's articles and reads his books would agree that Pollack supported the removal of Saddam. Anyone who read his books and articles, would also agree with me that he has NEVER been supportive of the manner in which the war or the reconstruction has been handled. He has been forthright and honest about the failures of the Administration.

When are you signing up to go help reconstruct? Is there something that is stopping you from enlisting? Just curious. Someone as dedicated to the cause, must really want to do your part.

I on the other hand, may very well vote for Obama at this point. Having lost a friend that I served with, a friend from church, and a student of mine....I am tired of the war machine lying. Shaking things up a bit may make a difference.